Voting Progress!

Posted by (twitter: @charlottegore)
December 19th, 2015 8:30 am

Last Ludum Dare there were a few grumbles about the three week voting period. We didn’t have any stats to argue with though, so every day during LD34’s voting I’m taking a snapshop and then at the end we’ll have a lovely set of graphs. Probably.


When I took today’s sample there had been 65712 votes cast! Assuming, like last time, games need 17 votes to get a rating, then so far 1622 games have enough votes, which is 56% of all games. Finally, we’re encouraged to play and rate 25 games this time. So far just over 1000 games have reached this milestone, or 35% of devs/games.


  • The top 287 (10%) games by votes received have 31.1% of all votes
  • The top 1436 (50%) of games have 80% of all votes
  • The bottom 570 (20%) of games have just 2.3% of the votes
  • 10% of all votes have gone to just 45 (1.6%) games.

#OccupyLudumDare? 😛


Looking at the way that the number of votes each day is going down we’ll probably have about 60% of games with enough votes to get a rating by the end of the first week. I’m actually assuming that things pick up a little bit over the weekend.

But, truth is, there’s a long way to go and so it looks pretty obvious to me why the voting runs for three weeks rather than just one.


If all the votes given so far were evenly distributed, every game would have 22 votes already and we’d be done :)


12 Responses to “Voting Progress!”

  1. YinYin says:

    I truly really wouldn’t mind if voting lasted all the way to one week before the next ludum dare. Or just up to the point where suggestions and voting for the next theme starts.

    22 votes is still barely above the limit for a proper rating. And we don’t even have that for every game!

    A change I’d like to suggest is weighting votes towards the encouraged (“vote for more games!”) threshold differently: voting on a game that already has enough or even far beyond enough votes won’t count towards removing that vote encouragement line. You gotta vote on stuff that still fails to meet the required votes.

    • hexagore says:

      Oh I like that idea, assuming that you get ‘extra points’ for voting for stuff in the ‘default’ section (rather than the least votes section).

      I think the biggest thing LD could do would be to make the default play & rate page as cool as something like the page, where you can filter by platform etc, see big exciting thumbnails. I guess because the page is a far more useable way to find games to play, people are using that instead of the built in thing, which sort of instantly makes a feedback loop where popular games only get more popular… which is what the stats are showing is happening.

      • YinYin says:

        Pretty much.

        There is little value to voting on an already popular game. At least for the whole reviewing process. It certainly isn’t too “cool” if one only plays all the games that rise to the top.

        So I’m not sure if extra points are needed – coolness could simply be a more complex factor (how many games have you rated while they were below their required amount?).

        Also that default play & rate page certainly needs some more bling.

        Alternatively something like the steam greenlight yay/nay queue would be great as well. Basically just a “give me a game that scores high on the default list” button as well as some statistics to how many of those you’ve done per day/in total.

  2. YinYin says:

    Another thing that very likely pushes the imbalance is that creators who are very confident about their work will likely push it towards youtubers/streamers/other sites more aggressively (same as sharing the “must play”-games one has found so far). I’ve discovered quite a few games to play and rate that way.

    I’ve pretty much done this myself a lot as well simply because the live feedback is worth so much more than an anonymous rating or even text only review.

    So it’s certainly not just about the sortable page (I haven’t used that yet btw, but damn that’s a nice tool to find the gems I missed out on afterwards!). And because this is a rather natural and important process preventing any such filtering to be available wouldn’t help either.

    Really just gotta make sure rating the ones that need it is worth a bit more for your own visibility than rating things that already got lots of exposure.

  3. timeshapers says:

    Do the top 45 games really have over 1400 votes each? that’s insane. I guess those games are by known developers, and aren’t being voted by the usual coolness method.

  4. Tuism says:

    I think this simply tells us that people vote more due to exposure other than the coolness push that the front page brings. I think weighing your coolness heavier for rating games with lower vote count is a good thing, but it doesn’t affect the outcome more than having a more “accurate” coolness, as the people who are doing the bulk of the voting aren’t, right now, voting by going to the front page and discovering games from there.

  5. Managore says:

    It would be really nice to see the ratings a lot more spread out, since a rating to someone with 100 ratings doesn’t mean quite as much as a rating to someone with 10 ratings. I agree with everyone else saying that rating low vote count games could count for more.

    Since you have the statistics, I’m very curious to know of the 44% of games that don’t have enough votes yet, how many of them have rated 25 or more games?

  6. YinYin says:

    Another thing I just noticed: it might help somewhat if a games page also showed how much ratings it has (it doesn’t seem to unless I’m overlooking it).
    Since I do often get to a games page from other places than the rate games page where you can see the numbers (like via comments on my own, streams, tweets, etc) I often don’t know how well the game I’m about to check out is doing with the required votes (except for the sometimes huge comment section).

    If a game I’m not particularly interested in trying already has 50+ ratings I may not bother to add mine and instead check out the next one still crawling along below 25.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

[cache: storing page]